Podcasts about startfragment

  Raba and Rav Chisda disagree on two issues. If items were not completely consumed on the altar, removed before midnight, and returned after midnight, at what point are they considered "consumed" such that they no longer need to be put back on the altar if removed again (assuming they have not yet turned to ash, in which case they would not need to be returned)? Raba rules that they are considered consumed at midnight of the following night, while Rav Chisda holds that the cutoff is dawn. If the items were not returned until after dawn, Raba still maintains that midnight of the next night renders them consumed, whereas Rav Chisda insists they can never be rendered consumed. Rav Yosef challenges the premise of both opinions, which assume that items not on the altar at midnight cannot be rendered consumed. He argues instead that midnight itself renders all items consumed, even if they were removed before midnight and not yet returned to the altar. Rava asked Raba: If items remain at the top of the altar all night, does that prevent them from becoming disqualified through lina (remaining overnight)? Raba answered that they are not disqualified, but Rava did not accept this response. A braita is cited, providing a source in the Torah that the ramp and sanctified vessels also sanctify disqualified items. If such items are placed on the ramp or the altar, they do not need to be removed. Reish Lakish posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding disqualified items placed in sanctified vessels. Initially, Rabbi Yochanan thought the question was whether they were sanctified to the extent that they could not be redeemed. Reish Lakish clarified that he was asking whether items placed in sanctified vessels could be brought ab initio on the altar. Rabbi Yochanan answered yes, based on the Mishna, but this answer was rejected since the Mishna could be read differently. The Gemara then asks: Does the airspace of the altar sanctify items? At first, it attempts to prove that the airspace does sanctify from the Mishna's statement: "Just as the altar sanctifies, so does the ramp." Items sanctified by the ramp must be carried through the altar's airspace to reach it. If the airspace does not sanctify, then carrying them would be akin to removing them, and once removed, they could not be returned. However, this proof is rejected, since it is possible to bring them to the altar by dragging rather than lifting. Rava bar Rav Chanan then attempts to prove the opposite from the case of a bird burnt offering brought at the top of the altar. If the airspace sanctifies, then there could be no case of pigul (disqualification due to improper intent), because as long as the offering remains on the altar, it could be sacrificed even the next day. Thus, a thought to offer it the next day would not constitute pigul. Rav Shimi rejects this argument, explaining that one could still have a pigul thought to remove the offering and then put it back on the altar the next day, which would indeed be disqualifying.

  Raba and Rav Chisda disagree on two issues. If items were not completely consumed on the altar, removed before midnight, and returned after midnight, at what point are they considered "consumed" such that they no longer need to be put back on the altar if removed again (assuming they have not yet turned to ash, in which case they would not need to be returned)? Raba rules that they are considered consumed at midnight of the following night, while Rav Chisda holds that the cutoff is dawn. If the items were not returned until after dawn, Raba still maintains that midnight of the next night renders them consumed, whereas Rav Chisda insists they can never be rendered consumed. Rav Yosef challenges the premise of both opinions, which assume that items not on the altar at midnight cannot be rendered consumed. He argues instead that midnight itself renders all items consumed, even if they were removed before midnight and not yet returned to the altar. Rava asked Raba: If items remain at the top of the altar all night, does that prevent them from becoming disqualified through lina (remaining overnight)? Raba answered that they are not disqualified, but Rava did not accept this response. A braita is cited, providing a source in the Torah that the ramp and sanctified vessels also sanctify disqualified items. If such items are placed on the ramp or the altar, they do not need to be removed. Reish Lakish posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding disqualified items placed in sanctified vessels. Initially, Rabbi Yochanan thought the question was whether they were sanctified to the extent that they could not be redeemed. Reish Lakish clarified that he was asking whether items placed in sanctified vessels could be brought ab initio on the altar. Rabbi Yochanan answered yes, based on the Mishna, but this answer was rejected since the Mishna could be read differently. The Gemara then asks: Does the airspace of the altar sanctify items? At first, it attempts to prove that the airspace does sanctify from the Mishna's statement: "Just as the altar sanctifies, so does the ramp." Items sanctified by the ramp must be carried through the altar's airspace to reach it. If the airspace does not sanctify, then carrying them would be akin to removing them, and once removed, they could not be returned. However, this proof is rejected, since it is possible to bring them to the altar by dragging rather than lifting. Rava bar Rav Chanan then attempts to prove the opposite from the case of a bird burnt offering brought at the top of the altar. If the airspace sanctifies, then there could be no case of pigul (disqualification due to improper intent), because as long as the offering remains on the altar, it could be sacrificed even the next day. Thus, a thought to offer it the next day would not constitute pigul. Rav Shimi rejects this argument, explaining that one could still have a pigul thought to remove the offering and then put it back on the altar the next day, which would indeed be disqualifying.

  According to the Mishna, in a burnt offering, items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself—such as bones, hooves, horns, and sinews—are left on the altar if they remain attached to the meat. However, if they are detached, they must be removed from the altar. This ruling is derived from two different verses in the Torah: in Vayikra 1:9 it says that everything is burned on the altar, while in Devarim 12:27 it specifies that in burnt offerings, meat and blood are brought on the altar. This opinion in the Mishna is attributed to Rebbi, while another tannaitic view interprets "everything" more broadly to include these parts, with the limiting verse excluding bones, sinews, etc. only once they have already been consumed by the fire and separated from it. Rabbi Zeira qualifies Rebbi's opinion, explaining that if these parts became separated from the meat but moved closer to the pyre, they are to remain on the altar. The Gemara rejects this explanation, and Rabba offers a different interpretation of Rabbi Zeira's qualification. He explains that the qualification was not on Rebbi's words themselves but on an inference drawn from them—that if they separate, they must be removed from the altar, though they still retain sanctity and cannot be used for personal benefit. Rabba then distinguishes between items that separated before the blood was placed on the altar and those that separated afterward. If they were still attached at the time of the blood sprinkling and later separated, they are considered sanctified items that became disqualified, which are forbidden for benefit. But if they were already detached at the time of sprinkling, they were never destined for the altar and are therefore permitted for the kohanim's use, as derived from a gezeira shava from the guilt offering. Rabbi Elazar takes the opposite approach. If they were still attached when the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling permits them, so there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, though they remain prohibited by rabbinic law. However, if they were already detached, the sprinkling has no effect on them, and they remain in their original consecrated state, making one liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Mishna further explains that if any of the disqualified offerings that are meant to remain on the altar (as mentioned in Zevachim 84a) fall off the altar, or if an ember of wood falls off, they do not need to be returned. The Mishna also rules that if parts of the sacrifice that are to be burned on the altar fall off, they must be put back on if this occurs before midnight. After midnight, however, they do not need to be returned. The Gemara limits this ruling to items that have hardened but not yet reduced to ash. Items not yet consumed to that state must be returned regardless of the time, while items already reduced to ash do not need to be returned. Rav brings a source for the significance of midnight in this law from a drasha on the verses in Vayikra 6:2–3. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on this braita from a Mishna in Yoma 20a, and Rabbi Yochanan brings a different drasha to explain the Mishna.

  According to the Mishna, in a burnt offering, items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself—such as bones, hooves, horns, and sinews—are left on the altar if they remain attached to the meat. However, if they are detached, they must be removed from the altar. This ruling is derived from two different verses in the Torah: in Vayikra 1:9 it says that everything is burned on the altar, while in Devarim 12:27 it specifies that in burnt offerings, meat and blood are brought on the altar. This opinion in the Mishna is attributed to Rebbi, while another tannaitic view interprets "everything" more broadly to include these parts, with the limiting verse excluding bones, sinews, etc. only once they have already been consumed by the fire and separated from it. Rabbi Zeira qualifies Rebbi's opinion, explaining that if these parts became separated from the meat but moved closer to the pyre, they are to remain on the altar. The Gemara rejects this explanation, and Rabba offers a different interpretation of Rabbi Zeira's qualification. He explains that the qualification was not on Rebbi's words themselves but on an inference drawn from them—that if they separate, they must be removed from the altar, though they still retain sanctity and cannot be used for personal benefit. Rabba then distinguishes between items that separated before the blood was placed on the altar and those that separated afterward. If they were still attached at the time of the blood sprinkling and later separated, they are considered sanctified items that became disqualified, which are forbidden for benefit. But if they were already detached at the time of sprinkling, they were never destined for the altar and are therefore permitted for the kohanim's use, as derived from a gezeira shava from the guilt offering. Rabbi Elazar takes the opposite approach. If they were still attached when the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling permits them, so there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, though they remain prohibited by rabbinic law. However, if they were already detached, the sprinkling has no effect on them, and they remain in their original consecrated state, making one liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Mishna further explains that if any of the disqualified offerings that are meant to remain on the altar (as mentioned in Zevachim 84a) fall off the altar, or if an ember of wood falls off, they do not need to be returned. The Mishna also rules that if parts of the sacrifice that are to be burned on the altar fall off, they must be put back on if this occurs before midnight. After midnight, however, they do not need to be returned. The Gemara limits this ruling to items that have hardened but not yet reduced to ash. Items not yet consumed to that state must be returned regardless of the time, while items already reduced to ash do not need to be returned. Rav brings a source for the significance of midnight in this law from a drasha on the verses in Vayikra 6:2–3. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on this braita from a Mishna in Yoma 20a, and Rabbi Yochanan brings a different drasha to explain the Mishna.

Study Guide When different bloods are mixed together, how are they brought on the altar? If both sacrifices require the same number of placements, that number is performed, with the assumption that the blood placed on the altar represents a combination of both offerings. However, if the mixture includes blood from a sacrifice requiring one placement and another requiring four, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree on the proper procedure. Why does the Mishna introduce the case of blood from blemished animals mixed with valid blood, when it has already discussed a similar case regarding limbs of blemished animals mixed with valid limbs? The Gemara then cites a Mishna in Parah 9:1, which deals with waters of the red heifer that became mixed with ordinary water. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis dispute whether such water can be used, and if so, in what manner. Three possible explanations are offered to clarify Rabbi Eliezer's position. The Gemara proceeds to challenge these explanations: first, a difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's interpretation, which remains unresolved. Then, five difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi's explanation, drawn from various braitot and our Mishna. Each of these is resolved through the method of ukimta, limiting the ruling to specific circumstances. Finally, one additional difficulty is raised later in the sugya, which remains unresolved.

Study Guide When different bloods are mixed together, how are they brought on the altar? If both sacrifices require the same number of placements, that number is performed, with the assumption that the blood placed on the altar represents a combination of both offerings. However, if the mixture includes blood from a sacrifice requiring one placement and another requiring four, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree on the proper procedure. Why does the Mishna introduce the case of blood from blemished animals mixed with valid blood, when it has already discussed a similar case regarding limbs of blemished animals mixed with valid limbs? The Gemara then cites a Mishna in Parah 9:1, which deals with waters of the red heifer that became mixed with ordinary water. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis dispute whether such water can be used, and if so, in what manner. Three possible explanations are offered to clarify Rabbi Eliezer's position. The Gemara proceeds to challenge these explanations: first, a difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's interpretation, which remains unresolved. Then, five difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi's explanation, drawn from various braitot and our Mishna. Each of these is resolved through the method of ukimta, limiting the ruling to specific circumstances. Finally, one additional difficulty is raised later in the sugya, which remains unresolved.

El Valencia sigue sin ganar lejos de Mestalla esta temporada. No hay demasiados motivos para la alegría por el empate de ayer en Vallecas. La primera parte fue mala. El Rayo mereció incluso más que ese 1-0 que se llevó al descanso. Corberán quitó a Guerra, muy flojo ayer, dio entrada a Danjuma y el equipo mejoró y acabó empatando, gracias a un gol de rebote de Diego López que tocó en Mendy. Ahí, con casi media hora por delante, al Valencia le faltó colmillo, ambición y valentía para oler sangre y llevarse el encuentro. El Rayo venía de partido europeo y le temblaron las piernas… pero al equipo de Corberán no le dio para ganar. Era una de esas noches. Conseguir el 1-2 hubiera supuesto poder mirar para arriba. El empate mantiene al Valencia sexto por la cola y todavía pendiente de la zona de descenso.

¿Habrá gira mundial de Justin Bieber en 2026 y pasará por España? ¡Rihanna sigue rompiendo marcas sin lanzar disco nuevo. Charlie Puth cantará el himno en la Super Bowl 2026. Joaquín Sabina ofreció el último concierto de su vida ante más de 12.000 personas. 

José Danvila había perdido la confianza en Julián Calero. Demasiados planteamientos incomprensibles. Demasiada cabezonería en algunas situaciones que no han gustado arriba: entre ellas, la posición de Elgezábal y Olasagasti o la defensa de cinco. Con la confianza perdida y el equipo caído, la decisión que toma el Levante es la única posible. Cesar a Calero, al que hay que darle las gracias por el ascenso y el trabajo, es la salida responsable. Pero hay que acertar el recambio. Hay conversaciones con Luis García Plaza. Conoce la casa y tiene corazón granota. Si acaba aceptando volver, será más por eso que por dinero.

Los conciertos que Rosalía no quiso perderse este 2025. Dani Martín regresa a O Son do Camiño en 2026. Queen celebra 50 años de ‘A Night at the Opera'. Blas Cantó lanza ‘Será Navidad 2025' junto a 21 artistas y Unicef. 

Con el catedrático en Microbiología y director del Museo de Ciencias de la UNAV, Ignacio López Goñi

Espacio sobre temática LGTBIQ+

Espacio de reflexión con Ricardo Piñero, filósofo y profesor universitario

La actividad de las ONGs de Navarra 

Con el historiador Jaime Aznar 

Taylor Swift suena en el número 1 de LOS40. El papel de Rosalía en Euphoria. HUNTR/X interpreta Golden en mitad de Nueva York. Ana Mena vuelve a los escenarios. 

Con las divulgadoras en nutrición Yolanda Vélaz y María Marqués 

Right About Now with Ryan Alford Join media personality and marketing expert Ryan Alford as he dives into dynamic conversations with top entrepreneurs, marketers, and influencers. "Right About Now" brings you actionable insights on business, marketing, and personal branding, helping you stay ahead in today's fast-paced digital world. Whether it's exploring how character and charisma can make millions or unveiling the strategies behind viral success, Ryan delivers a fresh perspective with every episode. Perfect for anyone looking to elevate their business game and unlock their full potential.     Resources: Right About Now Newsletter | Free Podcast Monetization Course | Join The Network |Follow Us On Instagram | Subscribe To Our Youtube Channel | Vibe Science Media SUMMARY In this episode of "Right About Now," host Ryan Alford interviews Sawyer Hemsley, co-founder and COO of Crumbl Cookies. Sawyer shares Crumbl’s journey from a college side hustle to a tech-driven bakery empire with over 500 stores. The conversation covers their unique rotating menu, innovative marketing strategies, and in-house technology that powers seamless customer experiences. Sawyer also discusses the challenges of rapid growth, maintaining quality, and building a strong brand identity. The episode offers insights into entrepreneurship, brand building, and the power of combining tradition with innovation in the food industry. TAKEAWAYS Origin story of Crumbl Cookies as a side hustle Development of a tech-driven bakery model Unique rotating menu of cookie flavors Rapid growth to over 500 stores in under four years Integration of custom-built technology for customer experience Importance of family recipes and customer feedback in product development Franchise model evolution and community-driven expansion Marketing strategies, including social media engagement and branding In-store experience and sensory elements of visiting Crumbl locations Challenges of entrepreneurship and maintaining brand consistency across locations

La canción de la española se ha colado en su último set de DJ. Lo mejor de los Premios Ondas 2025. La oferta que rechazó Dani Martín en los 2000's que habría cambiado la historia de El Canto del Loco. Romeo Santos y Prince Royce hacen realidad el sueño de los bachateros: se unen en un álbum conjunto. Miguel Ríos desvela de dónde percibe los mayores ingresos y no es de vender discos.

Cómo visibilizar el autismo a través del deporte

El derbi Valencia-Levante vuelve a Mestalla después de 3 años. Hemos conocido la última hora de ambos equipos, hemos pulsado la opinión de los comentaristas de Carrusel Pepe Plá y Rubén Suárez. Además, hemos contado la previa del partido de Euroliga que esta noche disputará el Valencia Basket y Estrella Roja

A Edgar Hita le crecen los amigos sumilleres y nos lo tenía que contar en el grabófono. Con Luismi Pérez hablamos de cómo los grandes incendios del verano que han desplazado ahora mucha ceniza a los ríos. Repasamos la prensa, la actualidad deportiva y nos detenemos en la contraportada. Cerramos con Adriana Mourelos y un grabófono de mucha actualidad. Todo esto junto a David Muñoz y todos sus personajes. 

México buscará romper 3 récords Guinness en el Mundial. ¡¡¡A huev...!!! Hablando de deportes, fuertes palabras que le dijo el Dr a Martinoli, ¿será el divorcio? ¿Qué dice 'El perro' Bermúdez, Memo 8A va al mundial? A Shakira le hace falta el aparato reproductor y a la Beli se le andan saliendo las shishes, ¡qué círculo rosa les tenemos! 

En fin de semana siempre está lleno.

Ay mijita, ¿ya con otro?

Alejado de los focos informativos por los problemas deportivos del primer equipo, el filial del Valencia está realizando un inicio de temporada paupérrimo. Es penúltimo en el Grupo 3 de Segunda Federación con tan solo ocho puntos, por detrás de clubes como Andratx, Barbastro o Porreres. Solo ha ganado un partido en las once primeras jornadas. La plantilla que dirige Angulo tiene calidad y presupuesto para bastante más. En Paterna se habla de paciencia para la adaptación y un exceso de juventud. La plantilla tiene una media de edad de 20'6 años. Pero también hay juventud en el filial del Barça (19'8 años de media de edad), que va segundo en el mismo grupo que el Mestalla, en el Fabril -filial del Depor- (20'7 años de media de edad) que va segundo en el Grupo 1, o en el Getafe  B (21 años de media de edad) segundo en el Grupo 5. Lo más importante es formar, por supuesto, y preparar generaciones de buenos jugadores. Pero también hay que competir. Y ganar alguna vez. Alguna más que una en once jornadas.

Las luces no alumbran, no es seguro, de milagro avanza, sale carísimo y aún así, lo quiero.

Rav and Levi disagree about whether there was truly no base on the south and east sides of the altar, or whether a base existed but the blood could not be poured there. Various sources are cited to challenge both opinions, and each difficulty is addressed and resolved. One of the sources provides a detailed description of how the altar was constructed. Rava, based on a drasha from a verse in Shmuel I 19:19, explains how David and Shmuel determined that the Temple would be built specifically in the territory of Binyamin and precisely at that location—not elsewhere. Although Ein Eitam was actually higher in elevation, two reasons are given for why that site was ultimately rejected.  

Rav and Levi disagree about whether there was truly no base on the south and east sides of the altar, or whether a base existed but the blood could not be poured there. Various sources are cited to challenge both opinions, and each difficulty is addressed and resolved. One of the sources provides a detailed description of how the altar was constructed. Rava, based on a drasha from a verse in Shmuel I 19:19, explains how David and Shmuel determined that the Temple would be built specifically in the territory of Binyamin and precisely at that location—not elsewhere. Although Ein Eitam was actually higher in elevation, two reasons are given for why that site was ultimately rejected.  

Entrevista a Manu Fajardo, director deportivo del Betis (ex Levante): el fútbol normal como debe ser. Y viernes de previas. En nuestro SER Deportivos de este viernes hemos entrevistado al director deportivo del Betis, explicándonos la forma de funcionar tan lejos del de su rival de este domingo: el Valencia. Última hora del Valencia, Levante (con Calero) y el Valencia Basket de Euroliga, tanto en masculino como en femenino.

Viernes de previas para Valencia y Levante; desenlace de los partidos del Valencia Basket masculino y femenino... y nuestra Moviola. En nuestro Off The Record de este viernes, hemos contado cómo se han decidido los partidos del Valencia Basket masculino en Kaunas y el femenino en Vitoria. Y, por supuesto, con las previas del Valencia-Betis y del Atlético-Levante. Y, como viernes que es, cerramos con nuestra Moviola.

Con buen criterio, el departamento de comunicación del Levante eligió ayer a Kervin Arriaga como protagonista en sala de prensa en una semana grande como es esta, la del partido en el Metropolitano ante el Atleti. El hondureño está siendo una de las revelaciones de LaLiga, con un rendimiento portentoso en el eje de la medular granota. En su comparecencia ante los medios, reveló una información que puede suponer una gran alegría para la afición del Levante. Arriaga ha planteado a su seleccionador que, siempre que Honduras consiga tras el primer partido de este parón de noviembre la clasificación para el Mundial 2026, le gustaría descansar e incluso regresar antes para poder jugar el derbi contra el Valencia. El músculo y el alma del Levante además tiene un altísimo nivel de compromiso. Arriaga va a ser uno de los fichajes de esta temporada. No tengo ninguna duda.

Corberán prepara defensa de cinco y trivote; la media del Levante; Pedro Martínez y Mano a Mano con Ballesteros. En nuestro Off The Record de este jueves hemos abierto con las novedades que prepara Corberán para el partido ante el Betis. En el Levante, los problemas de Calero para la media. Pedro Martínez en la víspera de su visita a Kaunas. Y escuchamos un extracto del tercer capítulo del videopodcast Mano a Mano con Sergio Ballesteros.

Querides corneta avientes, el debate de hoy es: ¿Qué opinamos en pleno 2025 de los concursos de belleza? ¡Grandes palabras la de nuestra querida Fátima Bosch. Y hablando de mujeres de las que no sentimos orgullosos: Leticia Landa gana el Basque Culinary World Prize 2025, el “Nobel de la gastronomía". ¿Les gustaría estar en el grupo de 'guats' de Laura Pausini? Y, ¿qué hacía Lucía Méndez para bajarle la peda a José José?

Hasta 1900 las ejecuciones en España eran públicas y se celebraban como un espectáculo más para el ciudadano. Hasta se instalaban puestos de comida y bebida, y los cocheros voceaban sus ofertas para trasladar a los morbosos hasta el lugar de la ejecución. La última fiesta fue el garrote que dieron en público en 1899 a Rafael González Gancedo por asesinar a su mujer y a su bebé para largarse con su amante. Nuevo episodio con Nieves Concostrina, Ana Valtierra, Emma Vallespinós, Pepe Rubio, Jesús Pozo y María Jesús Rodríguez.

Hasta 1900 las ejecuciones en España eran públicas y se celebraban como un espectáculo más para el ciudadano. Hasta se instalaban puestos de comida y bebida, y los cocheros voceaban sus ofertas para trasladar a los morbosos hasta el lugar de la ejecución. La última fiesta fue el garrote que dieron en público en 1899 a Rafael González Gancedo por asesinar a su mujer y a su bebé para largarse con su amante. Nuevo episodio con Nieves Concostrina, Ana Valtierra, Emma Vallespinós, Pepe Rubio, Jesús Pozo y María Jesús Rodríguez.

Study Guide   The Gemara cites a braita to locate the source for the halakha that all placements of the sin-offering blood performed in the inner sanctuary are essential. The braita’s author treats the seven sprinklings as essential because they are treated as essential elsewhere - this statement is explained as referring to seven sprinklings in the rituals of the red heifer and the purification of a leper. The ruling that the four placements are essential is derived from the phrase “and as such he should do.” Why not derive them from the phrase “and he should do like he did,” which is used to teach the seven sprinklings - why can’t both be derived from the same verse? Rabbi Yirmiya and Abaye offer different answers. The braita explains that the word “bull” mentioned first in Vayikra 4:20 refers to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak teaches from this that the blood placements are essential. Rav Papa, however, maintains that the essential nature can be derived from the verses of Yom Kippur and therefore understands the verse as teaching three specific laws about dipping the finger in the blood, laws drawn from the sin offering of the kohen gadol. A braita is brought in support of Rav Papa’s position. Rabbi Yishmael held that the laws for the bull of Yom Kippur could be derived by kal va'chomer reasoning and therefore understood the "bull" in the verse to be referring to the communal sin offering.   

Study Guide   The Gemara cites a braita to locate the source for the halakha that all placements of the sin-offering blood performed in the inner sanctuary are essential. The braita’s author treats the seven sprinklings as essential because they are treated as essential elsewhere - this statement is explained as referring to seven sprinklings in the rituals of the red heifer and the purification of a leper. The ruling that the four placements are essential is derived from the phrase “and as such he should do.” Why not derive them from the phrase “and he should do like he did,” which is used to teach the seven sprinklings - why can’t both be derived from the same verse? Rabbi Yirmiya and Abaye offer different answers. The braita explains that the word “bull” mentioned first in Vayikra 4:20 refers to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak teaches from this that the blood placements are essential. Rav Papa, however, maintains that the essential nature can be derived from the verses of Yom Kippur and therefore understands the verse as teaching three specific laws about dipping the finger in the blood, laws drawn from the sin offering of the kohen gadol. A braita is brought in support of Rav Papa’s position. Rabbi Yishmael held that the laws for the bull of Yom Kippur could be derived by kal va'chomer reasoning and therefore understood the "bull" in the verse to be referring to the communal sin offering.   

Así que esta es su primera colonoscopía.

Nos preguntamos cómo sería el político perfecto. Rubén Rodríguez nos trae su perfil a través de las virtudes de ciertos políticos que ya no están y que ha seleccionado entre todos los colores del espectro político. La vocación de Anguita, el compromiso de Zerolo, la cercanía de Iñaki Azkuna y la entereza de Gutiérrez Mellado durante el 23F.

Study Guide A braita is presented that derives from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured” the principle that if one performs just a single application of blood for each offering brought on the outer altar, they have fulfilled their obligation—supporting the halakha stated in the Mishnah. However, this verse is also used for various other interpretations and halakhot. This raises a question: how does the author of the braita derive this law from the verse if it is already employed for other teachings? Those who interpret the verse differently derive this law by another method: they learn the rule from the sin offering (in accordance with Beit Hillel) and extend it from there to other offerings. How do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel each derive their respective views regarding the sin offering from the biblical verses?

Study Guide A braita is presented that derives from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured” the principle that if one performs just a single application of blood for each offering brought on the outer altar, they have fulfilled their obligation—supporting the halakha stated in the Mishnah. However, this verse is also used for various other interpretations and halakhot. This raises a question: how does the author of the braita derive this law from the verse if it is already employed for other teachings? Those who interpret the verse differently derive this law by another method: they learn the rule from the sin offering (in accordance with Beit Hillel) and extend it from there to other offerings. How do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel each derive their respective views regarding the sin offering from the biblical verses?

Ha vuelto La Oreja de Van Gogh y Edgar Hita tiene mucho que contarnos sobre vueltas con los ex. Luismi Pérez nos explica lo dos tipos de tormentas que se pueden formar: las dinámicas y las térmicas. Repasamos la prensa, la actualidad deportiva y nos detenemos en la contraportada. Cerramos la hora con el segundo grabófono de Adriana Mourelos, como no, marcado por la política y la actualidad nacional.

Several difficulties are raised against the conclusion that the elders of the South must hold that the Paschal sacrifice may be brought on behalf of someone who is impure from contact with the dead. After presenting a challenge based on a question posed by Rami bar Hama, the Gemara concludes that Rami bar Hama clearly disagrees with the elders of the South. He maintains that the Paschal sacrifice cannot be brought for someone who is impure, and if it is, the offering is disqualified. A baraita is cited as a challenge to Rami bar Hama’s position, but the difficulty is ultimately resolved. Notably, there are two different versions of this challenge. Additionally, the Gemara discusses the case of a kohen who sits while performing the sacrificial rites. In such a case, the sacrifice is disqualified. The source for this ruling is examined, and two textual proofs are brought to support it.

Rebbi and Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the sanctification of a kohen’s hands and feet, performed before Temple service, is nullified each night, requiring repetition the next morning. According to Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon, the sanctification remains valid overnight, and there is no need to repeat it. Ilfa raises a question based on this view: If the sanctification remains valid overnight, is the water in the Temple’s basin also unaffected and not disqualified by nightfall? Rabbi Ami quotes Rabbi Yochanan, who reports that Ilfa later answered that the water is indeed not disqualified overnight. However, Rabbi Yitzchak bar Bisna challenges this conclusion. A Mishna in Yoma describes a device used in the Temple—the muchni—which lowered the water into a well each night to prevent it from becoming disqualified by remaining overnight. The Gemara attempts to use this source to support the possibility that Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon holds the water is disqualified overnight. This is based on an earlier Mishna in the same chapter that discusses the location of the bull’s slaughter on Yom Kippur, which aligns with Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s opinion: the area between the altar and the ulam (entrance hall), designated for slaughtering kodashei kodashim (most holy offerings). If the earlier Mishna accords with his opinion, it stands to reason that the later Mishna accords with his opinion as well. However, since the passage can also be interpreted in accordance with Rebbi’s view, no definitive conclusion is reached. A Mishna in Yoma describes a device used in the Temple, the muchni, to lower the water into a well each night to prevent it from becoming disqualified overnight. The Gemara attempts to prove that this source aligns with Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s view, proving that he holds the water is disqualified overnight, as an earlier Mishna in the chapter that describes the location of the slaughtering of the bull on Yom Kippur accords with his opinion. This location, between the altar and the ulam, matches Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s opinion regarding the designated area for slaughtering kodashei kodashim (most holy offerings). However, the passage can also be interpreted according to Rebbi’s view, so no definitive conclusion is reached. Rabbi Yochanan rules that a kohen who removes ashes from the altar during the final part of the night sanctifies his hands and feet for the day, despite it still being nighttime. Abaye explains this ruling according to Rebbi, while Rava explains it according to Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon. A challenge is raised against Rava’s interpretation, but it is ultimately resolved. Two additional questions are discussed: Does leaving the Temple cancel the sanctification of one’s hands and feet? Four sources are brought to address this, but each is rejected, and the question remains unresolved. Does becoming impure cancel the sanctification? Two of the sources cited in the previous discussion are brought in an attempt to answer this question as well.

Uy ahora sí metieron la casa por la ventana.

Tienes de especial lo que yo tengo de princesa de Mónaco.

¡No te quites la máscara, no te quites la máscara!

Mi mecánico de confianza, pa que me cheque el aceite seguido.

Tomarte selfies mandando besos.